Courage Spell

[lucasdp]

LOS requirement on this spell is a bad idea...I would suggest that it read something to the effect of it lasts until the last enemy in a combat is dispatched.

Because the LOS thing makes it so that I could run my monsters all around corners or behind furniture and ruin the spell.

I have been playing it like this throughout my recent quests and I think makes more sense. It has been easier to keep track of than LoS, and does not at all seem overpowering, in my opinion.

As long as you know that you're playing a house rules and not the intended rule. The card is clear, their next attack. I read it wrong too and didn't realise till I read this thread.

I do and so do my heroes. This was just my that this house ruling works pretty well, if anyone else is considering it. But it's totally a house rule, so take it or leave it. Up to you.

[mitchiemasha]

As long as you know that you're playing a house rules and not the intended rule. The card is clear, their next attack. I read it wrong too and didn't realise till I read this thread.

That's not what is says on my card. It's clear as day to it's interpretation, no doubting it's intent

I prefer the each time... It creates an auto leveling for the wizard. The more badies in a Quest, as they get harder, the stronger the spell becomes. Alternatively as the other editions, it becomes very week and worthless, like many complain about the wizard. Fixes that problem.

[The Admiral]

As long as you know that you're playing a house rules and not the intended rule. The card is clear, their next attack. I read it wrong too and didn't realise till I read this thread.

Yes, but if the spell is not broken, then their next attack gets the bonus as well, and then their next and so on until it is broken. well that's how I play it anyway.

[Gold Bearer]

I'm not trying to tell anybody how it should be played here, I'm just trying to sort out the official rules.

As long as you know that you're playing a house rules and not the intended rule. The card is clear, their next attack. I read it wrong too and didn't realise till I read this thread.

That's not what is says on my card. It's clear as day to it's interpretation, no doubting it's intent

But Lucasdp is using the US cards, that's not what it says on those. So again, just to be clear, the EU 2nd ed says that they gain two extra attack dice each attack, and it's broken when there's no monster in sight

As long as you know that you're playing a house rules and not the intended rule. The card is clear, their next attack. I read it wrong too and didn't realise till I read this thread.

Yes, but if the spell is not broken, then their next attack gets the bonus as well, and then their next and so on until it is broken. well that's how I play it anyway.

I see what you're saying but that's definitely not how it reads to me now that I've read it again. They get two extra dice on their next attack full stop. This is broken if there's ever no monster in sight before their next attack.

[The Admiral]

As long as you know that you're playing a house rules and not the intended rule. The card is clear, their next attack. I read it wrong too and didn't realise till I read this thread.

Yes, but if the spell is not broken, then their next attack gets the bonus as well, and then their next and so on until it is broken. well that's how I play it anyway.

I see what you're saying but that's definitely not how it reads to me now that I've read it again. They get two extra dice on their next attack full stop. This is broken if there's ever no monster in sight before their next attack.

Yep, you are probably right, but as you say, we can all play as we like, as long as everybody agrees.

[Gold Bearer]

So again, just to be clear, the EU 2nd ed says that they gain two extra attack dice each attack, and it's broken when there's no monster in sight

I checked the cards here to see if I'd somehow missed the 2nd ed EU cards but the the ones here ARE the 2nd ed cards.

Courage is two extra attack dice each attack until there's no monster in sight, rock skin is two extra defence dice until they loose a BP and a sleeping monster doesn't wake up before they're first attacked, they wake up after, giving the heroes one undefendable attack (I'm fairly sure that you didn't get a free attack like that in 1st ed but I can't check at the moment). Those are big improvements.

[Fullork345]

Wow, never realised it's only the next attack. I always took it the spell lasts until the monsters aren't seen so you keep attacking.

[Saiyaforthelight]

[This post and the following self-same titled posts were moved from Incorrectly Played Rules on 8/23/16. The quoted text was added for clarity.]

I apparently always played courage wrong. Thought it lasted until line of site ended, not only one attack.

Courage was only one attack in the original EU version, but was quickly changed in all later editions to be 'until line of sight is lost' - basically for the whole of the current combat, until all enemies are defeated. The intended use is for it to function in this way.

[Fullork345]

Courage was only one attack in the original EU version, but was quickly changed in all later editions to be 'until line of sight is lost' - basically for the whole of the current combat, until all enemies are defeated. The intended use is for it to function in this way.

Even though the American version says "next attack"?

[knightkrawler]

Still some dodgy wording there. "The next time" contzradicts the following "The spell is broken when..." because it points out a one-time use.
But the fact that there is that next sentence should make it clear(er) that it should in fact be the decisive part.
It wouldn't be necessary if the spell only worked for one attack in the first place, so it must determine the "multiple attacks until..." prop of the spell.

Boy, my rules writing is so much better than the original. And English is not even my native language.
The mistakes they made...
Oh the humanity.